Ep 390 ｜ Kristi Noem Betrays Girls' Sports; the PRO Act Betrays Freelancers ｜ Guest： Kelsey Bolar
Episode Stats
Words per Minute
164.11478
Summary
In this episode of Relatable, we talk about the ongoing immigration crisis at the border, Governor Kristi Noem's decision to backtrack on a piece of legislation, and why she doesn't want to sign a bill protecting girls in sports.
Transcript
00:00:00.000
Hey guys, welcome to Relatable. Happy Tuesday. Hope everyone has had a wonderful week so
00:00:15.580
far. If you haven't listened to yesterday's long episode, then I encourage you to do so.
00:00:22.420
There is still a lot of conversation, a lot of vitriol right now, and understandably a
00:00:28.420
lot of sadness about the events in Atlanta last week. And we remember those victims and
00:00:33.880
we remember the humanity that should always remain the center of these kinds of discussions.
00:00:39.400
And we also talk about what is true behind these trends or what is being reported as
00:00:45.500
a trend of anti-Asian hate crimes. There's a lot of accusations about that. And we look
00:00:51.280
at the data, we look at the studies to see what is actually true. So I really encourage
00:00:55.840
you to go listen to yesterday's episode if you need clarity on that. There's another
00:01:00.560
huge crisis and controversy going on right now with what's happening at the border. You
00:01:05.260
guys might have listened to last Thursday's podcast kind of giving us the explanation.
00:01:11.120
I interviewed an expert on this of what is actually going on with illegal immigration,
00:01:15.920
with these migrants at the border. They're being transferred to different parts of Texas,
00:01:20.020
different parts of the United States on the taxpayer dime, thousands and thousands being
00:01:24.400
relocated and put into hotel rooms. And remember the National Guard in January when they were tasked
00:01:29.900
with guarding the Capitol after the Capitol riot, we saw pictures of them being placed in basically a
00:01:36.260
parking garage without any beds, sharing apparently one bathroom without any food or water. But now we
00:01:43.160
are paying for illegal immigrants to be put up in hotel rooms and different convention centers
00:01:47.640
around the country. And we talked about, again, how we approach this issue with compassion,
00:01:54.220
but also how we have to look out for the safety of our citizens and how we have to protect our
00:02:00.760
borders. It is a humanitarian crisis that has been it's lasted for a long time, but it's been
00:02:06.540
exacerbated by Biden's policies. We talk about how exactly it's been exacerbated by Biden's specific
00:02:12.640
policies. Now there is basically a gag rule, it seems for journalists. They're not allowed to
00:02:18.680
they're not allowed to have access to parts of the border. They're not allowed to talk to particular
00:02:23.440
agents. They're really not allowed to see what's going on. And that is an a demand that is a command
00:02:30.540
from the Biden administration that they're basically not allowed to really report on what's going on at
00:02:36.180
the border. That I mean, if that were happening under Donald Trump, if the Trump administration
00:02:41.860
basically said, hey, sorry, you can't have access to what's going on at the border. I mean, there would
00:02:46.800
be so much outcry about fascism and about the concentration camps at the border. I mean, we've seen
00:02:53.460
some pictures of these kids put in, again, what look like cages cramped. A lot more of them are there now
00:03:02.160
than were under Trump because, again, of Biden's policies. It's just a terrible, terrible situation
00:03:09.060
that's going on. And the same people that said that they voted for Biden because of this, quote,
00:03:15.220
holistically pro-life issue of kids in cages and wanting to protect migrants. They're not saying
00:03:21.800
anything right now. They're not saying anything. The whole thing is just a farce. It was a farce,
00:03:28.220
at least before the election. And it's very sad. But we'll be talking more about that in the coming
00:03:32.880
days. But go back and listen to Thursday. It gives a lot of insight. Today, what we're going to talk
00:03:38.420
about is Governor Kristi Noem of South Dakota. She has decided to backtrack on a piece of legislation.
00:03:46.440
She said she was excited to sign it, but apparently she's not excited to sign it anymore. And it has
00:03:50.940
to do with protecting girls' sports. And so we'll talk a little bit about why she has decided that
00:03:57.040
she doesn't want to sign this bill anymore. And then we're also going to talk about a very important
00:04:02.160
piece of legislation. And that is called the PRO Act. The PRO Act would absolutely wreck our economy
00:04:09.940
by making it nearly impossible for you to be a freelancer, to be an independent contractor.
00:04:15.920
And we'll talk about how it actually stops most people who are freelancers from being freelancers
00:04:21.040
and what that would actually mean for the country, what that would mean for you specifically,
00:04:25.840
if you are a freelancer. And so we'll get into all of that today. I'm going to talk to Kelsey
00:04:31.240
Bowler. She is a journalist. She is a commentator. She's got a lot of insight on both of those
00:04:36.620
two issues. But first, before I get into that interview, I do want to give you a little background
00:04:43.340
about Kristi Noem, the governor of South Dakota, and this bill, which is HB 1217, and what her apparent
00:04:54.020
hesitations are about this bill. So this is according to The Federalist, an article by Margo
00:05:01.280
Cleveland bowing to corporate demands for a watered-down bill. Governor Kristi Noem sells out
00:05:06.280
women's sports. So the article says, after promising to sign HB at 1217, Noem instead took to Twitter
00:05:13.680
on Friday, March 19th to state why she had changed her mind and instead returned the bill to legislators
00:05:19.540
for modifications. Noem elaborated on her reasoning in a letter to legislators. She balked on signing
00:05:27.360
House Bill 1217. The article says, when the bill to promote fairness in women's sports crossed her
00:05:32.080
desk, instead of vetoing the legislation, she returned the bill to the House with what she called
00:05:36.560
recommendations as to style and form. So she is still saying, look, I believe that women's sports
00:05:41.960
should be protected. They should be exclusively for women. But there are just some parts of this bill
00:05:47.400
that I just don't think are great. But critics of Noem, conservative critics of Noem are saying,
00:05:53.540
uh, your changes, your proposed changes are actually a lot bigger than just style and form.
00:05:58.640
You're actually kind of hollowing out this bill so it doesn't really protect women's sports. And let
00:06:03.320
me give you some examples of that. So there are four sections of this bill. The article explains,
00:06:09.420
it's finalized by the South Dakota legislature. Section 1 of HB 1217 provided that athletic teams
00:06:15.840
in sports in the state, including at institutions of higher education, must be expressly designated
00:06:21.120
as male, female, or co-education. It also stipulated that teams or sports designed as female must be
00:06:27.020
available only to participants who are female based on their biological sex. In other words,
00:06:33.360
Section 1 demanded schools, including colleges, limit women's sports to women. If an education
00:06:41.080
institution violated that mandate and allowed a male student to join a female team, Section 4 provides
00:06:47.000
that a female athlete injured by that violation could sue the school and obtain an injunction to
00:06:52.580
prevent a continued violation and damages to remedy the harm, which makes sense. This is how it is
00:06:57.760
protecting women in sports. But Noem asked the South Dakota legislature to admit Section 1 so that the
00:07:05.400
bill applied only to elementary and high school student athletes while then denying those students any
00:07:10.980
remedy for violations of the law. So not only did she say, hey, I don't want this to actually apply to
00:07:16.140
colleges, but even though it's applying, even as it applies to elementary and high school student
00:07:21.920
athletes, I don't want them to be able to have any legal recourse. I don't want them to be able to
00:07:27.420
sue the students. So if you're asking yourself, what protections does this actually give if these
00:07:31.840
amendments are made? That's a good question to be asking. Noem requested the legislature strike
00:07:37.680
Section 2 of the bill, which would have required students to annually verify their age biological
00:07:42.760
sex based on genetics and reproductive biology and attest that they had not taken performance
00:07:47.540
enhancing drugs, including anabolic steroids, in the preceding 12 months. The most striking changes
00:07:52.860
Noem demanded came in her insistence that the legislature strike collegiate athletes from the
00:07:58.400
bill's protection and eliminate Section 4's promise of a remedy to girls and women harmed in a
00:08:03.640
violation of the bill or who were retaliated against for complaining about violations of the
00:08:08.880
law. Section 4 added a second protection for South Dakota student-athletes. It also protected
00:08:14.480
students from retaliation if they report violations of the act to a school representative, athletic
00:08:19.560
association, or a state or federal governmental entity with oversight authority. Thus, for instance,
00:08:24.560
if a female basketball player complained to an athletic department that a coach had allowed a male
00:08:28.540
athlete to join her team and the school responded by banning the complaining student from
00:08:32.660
school-sponsored sports, the female student would be entitled to sue for the school for retaliation.
00:08:37.860
But in sending the bill back to the state legislature, Noem made two requests related to
00:08:42.100
these interrelated provisions. She excluded collegiate athletes from the bill's coverage and then
00:08:47.140
directed the legislature to strike or delete Section 4 in its entirety. And so basically,
00:08:53.340
any protection that this bill tried to provide women in sports, she wanted to change. She wanted to take
00:08:59.720
out. And I am flabbergasted by that. If you look at the actual change, if you look at the actual
00:09:05.940
legislation, which we will link to, and you look to the changes that she wanted to propose, basically,
00:09:11.200
it makes this piece of legislation meaningless. And if you're wondering why that is, I'm going to talk
00:09:17.280
about it with Kelsey Bowler, but it has a lot to do probably with the NCAA and wanting tournaments to
00:09:25.520
be able to come to South Dakota. It helps the economy. It's a money thing. Now, she denies this.
00:09:34.000
Tucker Carlson pressed her on this last night. And I'll show you just a snippet of that.
00:09:40.320
When they took punitive action against us, we would have to litigate. And legal scholars that I have been
00:09:45.240
consulting with for many, many months say that I would very likely lose those litigation efforts.
00:09:50.580
And I don't think that families in South Dakota, I don't think people should have to sue many times
00:09:55.740
over and over again. But wait, wait, wait. So you're saying the NCAA threatened you and you don't
00:10:01.260
think you can win that fight. They said, if you sign this, we won't allow girls in South Dakota to
00:10:05.760
play. And you don't think you can win in court, even though the public overwhelmingly supports you
00:10:11.800
nationally. And so you're caving to the NCAA. I think that's what you're saying.
00:10:16.040
So we couldn't play the whole clip. But on the one hand, she says, OK, this has to do with
00:10:20.180
I don't think that this piece of legislation is going to be able to legally hold up.
00:10:24.980
And I just don't think it's we're going to be able to defend it in court. But she also says,
00:10:29.120
look, we want tournaments to come to South Dakota. So which one is it?
00:10:32.060
Is it that you don't want to fight the legal battles or is it because you want the tournaments
00:10:35.400
to come to South Dakota or both? In either case, is it really not worth the fight?
00:10:42.420
And that's what we're going to analyze with Kelsey Bowler in just a second. She's got a lot of good
00:10:47.400
insight for us into this bill and the implications of not signing the bill and also possibly the why
00:10:53.620
behind Governor Kristi Noem deciding not to sign it.
00:11:03.340
Kelsey, thank you so much for joining me. A couple of things I want to talk to you about today.
00:11:08.280
The first is Governor Kristi Noem, South Dakota. She has disappointed some conservatives by not
00:11:16.760
signing a bill that would ban boys identifying as transgender girls from girls athletics. Can you
00:11:25.480
tell us what this is, what's going on and why she why she won't sign this bill?
00:11:31.920
Absolutely. Well, thanks for having me. It's great to be here. This is a really important issue. And
00:11:38.980
to be frank, I am quite disappointed by Governor Noem in her decision to send this bill back that would
00:11:48.280
protect fairness in women's and girls sports back to the legislator for proposed changes. Now, look,
00:11:55.800
perhaps there were some quibbles. Perhaps there are some legitimate concerns that she is raising.
00:12:03.120
The problem is that she's been in politics for quite some time. And she knows enough that if if
00:12:10.720
she had changes to this bill, she should have raised them earlier and worked with members in her state
00:12:18.040
Congress to get the bill in a position where she would be ready to sign it. If protecting girls and
00:12:23.640
women's sports was really her priority, she could have and should have addressed any of these proposed
00:12:28.720
changes earlier. Now, let's get into what these proposed changes are, and whether they are legitimate.
00:12:37.080
So one of the changes she wants to do is remove protections for college sports, but keep protections
00:12:43.320
for K through 12 sports. Now, I'm glad she's keeping protections for K through 12 sports. But to
00:12:50.120
emphasize those over protections for college athletics is backwards. Because when is this issue more
00:12:59.560
important other than protecting the scholarships that are supposed to be meant for girls and women
00:13:06.360
at the college level? You know, girls aren't getting scholarships for their fifth grade soccer team. And
00:13:14.040
that's that's the real danger here that women are going to be stripped of their college athletic
00:13:19.800
scholarship opportunities because they are being beat out by biological boys who are identifying as
00:13:27.240
girls. So it should be very concerning that she removed that provision in the law. And that is why a lot of
00:13:34.280
critics right now are pointing out that it sounds like she's selling out to the NCAA and other
00:13:41.480
woke corporate interests, which were lobbying against this legislation. That is part of the reason why I
00:13:50.360
am personally disappointed in her decision. Because if Trump changed anything in our political landscape,
00:13:59.800
he sort of ripped the bandaid off and was the first leader to say, I am not bowing to these
00:14:06.680
woke corporations anymore. I am not going to fear a lawsuit from the NCAA and use that as an excuse not to
00:14:17.000
take a stand for issues I believe in. So she really believes in the in the need to protect girls and women's
00:14:24.200
sports. You would think that she wouldn't let the fear of lawsuits intimidation by the NCAA or
00:14:32.040
Amazon, which is building facilities in her backyard, enable her to turn her back on this legislation.
00:14:42.120
Now, right, go ahead. Well, I just want to quickly bring up the second piece of this legislation that's
00:14:49.480
kind of being debated. You know, does she is her criticism legitimate? She took away legal recourse for
00:14:57.480
girls who are forced to compete against biological boys. And then this means like in Connecticut,
00:15:04.840
where in college, is this like strictly in college, she said, okay, you can't sue a college for this
00:15:11.800
reason? Well, the problem is she's taking out the protections for colleges. So how are you going to
00:15:18.040
sue on those grounds if women's sports isn't protected in colleges? So this really now applies to K through 12.
00:15:25.480
So in Connecticut, you know, we have already had biological boys beating out girls on the girls
00:15:31.480
track team there. And this takes away the ability of someone like a Selena soul to bring a lawsuit and,
00:15:39.240
you know, fight for her fairness. So, so, okay. So she is saying, like, she's saying on the one hand
00:15:46.040
that she's protecting K through 12 girls sports, but she's saying if a school decides, okay, actually,
00:15:53.720
this boy who identifies as a girl can play on the sixth grade soccer team, that girl's parents,
00:15:59.160
according to the changes that governor Noah made, cannot sue. Is that what you're saying?
00:16:05.560
Right. So how effective can this law be if they don't have the ability to pursue damages? And,
00:16:12.440
you know, just to be fair to her, some legal experts are saying, you know, maybe this opens the door for
00:16:18.920
trial lawyers and a lot of unnecessary lawsuits. But a lot of others argue that no, this, this provision
00:16:25.720
is necessary in order for this law to have teeth. So again, if, if this was a legitimate concern, she
00:16:34.120
had, she could have and should have raised it earlier.
00:16:37.320
Yes. And it's just, there are so many different, there's so many different pieces to this because
00:16:45.080
like you said, it seems like she's selling out to the NCAA. She did go on Tucker Carlson last night
00:16:51.080
to her credit to try to kind of like defend herself on this. And Tucker said, okay, it looks like you're
00:16:56.280
selling out to the NCAA. And she said, no, no, no, I'm not doing that. It has nothing to do with that.
00:17:01.400
I'm not allowing them to bully me. But what else could possibly be the reason? Because she also
00:17:07.560
explicitly said in that interview, Hey, we want tournaments to come here. We want tournaments
00:17:13.720
to come to South Dakota. So my question is, what is it? Is it because you don't think that this
00:17:19.640
has enough, like it's not legally substantive enough to hold up in court? Or is it a money issue?
00:17:26.680
Is it because you're afraid that the NCAA isn't going to bring their tournaments there? And
00:17:30.680
in either case, is that really worth not protecting girls' sports? But now she is doing this whole kind
00:17:38.440
of like PR move, it seems to, um, you know, she's trying to get people together and say,
00:17:44.200
we're for fairness in girls' sports and please sign this petition. What's that about? I'm kind of
00:17:51.080
confused about what seems like conflicting messages. Allie, the petition aspect of this is really salt in
00:17:59.320
the womb. Uh, what she did after backtracking on this legislation is create this website, uh,
00:18:07.160
about a petition to protect Title IX and protect women's and girls' sports. Well, a petition is kind
00:18:14.520
of meaningless. I hate to admit that, but it is. We have a national figure who was in a position to
00:18:21.160
actually do something that would protect girls' and women's sports. And she backed down. She was
00:18:27.800
unwilling to be the face of that issue. She was unwilling to take the bullet, uh, which inevitably
00:18:33.560
would have come. Uh, but in doing so, she, uh, really, you know, kind of exposed herself to,
00:18:41.720
uh, you know, the entire country as someone who is willing to, uh, sell out to the NCAA and Amazon and
00:18:50.040
other type of lobbyists who we know were pressuring her. Uh, this petition is calling for Republican
00:18:58.120
governors or any governors across the country, uh, to band together, to stand up to the NCAA and ensure, uh,
00:19:06.040
that girls' and women's sports are protected girls and women. Uh, but again, she could have done that. She
00:19:11.960
could have been the national leader in South Dakota, uh, by actually, you know, passing,
00:19:17.880
signing legislation, uh, that would have protected girls and women's sports. And now she's out there
00:19:22.760
promoting a petition that sounds nice, but doesn't really do anything. I don't disagree with her that
00:19:29.400
we do need a national coalition. We need more states that are doing the same thing as her. And there are
00:19:35.800
around 30 other bills, similar to this one in South Dakota across the country to protect girls and women's
00:19:41.720
sports. She could have been a national figure, sort of how Ron DeSantis, uh, was in Florida leading on,
00:19:48.120
you know, reopening and stuff. She could have been a face for this issue as a woman. I was excited about
00:19:53.160
that prospect. And unfortunately she's saying, no, I'm not willing or able to do this until I have
00:19:59.400
others surrounding me. Right. And what's also interesting is that she did just a day
00:20:05.480
ago. And I mean, I don't want to be cynical and say, this probably has to do with trying to like
00:20:10.120
take attention away from what happened with the women's sports legislation, but she did announce
00:20:16.200
an abortion ban, um, on world down syndrome day. Um, and so I think that this ban has to do with
00:20:25.000
not being able to get an abortion just because you get the diagnosis that your child has down syndrome.
00:20:31.400
Well, that is probably going to present some legal obstacles as well. She's probably this is going
00:20:37.560
to be brought to court, but she's willing to fight this battle, which is amazing as a pro-life person.
00:20:42.600
I'm so glad that she's willing to fight this battle, but why is it? I wonder when it comes to women's
00:20:48.920
sports, something that I believe that she probably is passionate about. I believe that she believes
00:20:54.120
that women's sports are for women. It seems like she's complicated it though, for some reason,
00:21:00.920
in a way that she is not worried about when it comes to abortion legislation. And I've just got
00:21:06.680
to think it has to do with exactly what you're talking about, the NCAA and, and, and making money
00:21:12.920
and not, I guess, wanting to make a statement on this issue. We also know that the LGBTQ lobby is very
00:21:20.200
powerful. And so we don't know what's behind that too, but it really is a shame because if she's not
00:21:27.000
going to stand up for this, then who is like, do we have a whole lot of politicians, governors standing
00:21:33.480
up for this issue in a way that is brave? Or is it just people like you and me that are talking about it?
00:21:40.200
Well, I think other governors across the country are now recognizing what an opportunity
00:21:46.200
this is to fight the culture war and stand up and be a face for that. And, you know, again,
00:21:52.680
I think this was a huge miss opportunity on her part. Sure. She would have faced, uh, you know,
00:22:00.120
financial consequences potentially in her state, but the grassroots would have had her back.
00:22:05.880
The vast majority of Americans, according to multiple polls, I've seen on this issue support
00:22:12.280
protecting fairness in girls and women's sports. It's a basic idea. We all know that men and women
00:22:19.080
are biologically, physically different from one another. And it is patently unfair for a biological
00:22:26.600
boy to take a scholarship opportunity away from a biological girl to compete in her own sports.
00:22:33.560
Um, and so the abortion example is, uh, it kind of exposes, uh, why a lot of people aren't buying into
00:22:43.720
her excuse for not signing this bill. We can't have leaders who will refuse to put into place policies
00:22:53.160
that the vast majority of their voters support simply because they fear political or legal retribution
00:23:00.920
by woke organization bodies such as the NCAA. Yeah. It really, I saw one commentator on Twitter
00:23:09.160
say that this is not only about girls sports. It's just about basic sanity. Like you said,
00:23:14.360
biologically girls and boys are different. We had an episode last week where we talked about some of the
00:23:18.840
studies won by Duke law school, for example, um, that talked about the differences between men and women.
00:23:25.080
And they looked at track stars, Olympic track stars, women versus high school
00:23:30.120
and college age and adult men. The Olympic track stars were beat by high school boys. Um,
00:23:38.360
when it comes to their time on certain track events, like 15,000 times, there was no event
00:23:44.520
in which these elite female runners could beat, um, the best time for high school and college age
00:23:52.120
boys when it comes to track. And so when you look at that kind of disparity, of course, the military
00:23:56.920
has done these kinds of studies as well. I mean, it's just basic sanity. And I think I know I'm not
00:24:03.000
in her position and thank goodness. I'm not a politician, but I think it's worth the cost and gosh,
00:24:09.560
it could have just given her so much political capital as well. But I think that she has kind of
00:24:15.800
thrown that under the bus, but we'll see what happens. I do want to move on to, um, this next issue.
00:24:21.320
That is a piece of federal legislation and that is called the pro act. And I first heard about this
00:24:28.200
from you, uh, from an article that you wrote in the federalist and I'm worried, I'm really worried
00:24:34.520
about it. And I know a lot of people out there, this could possibly affect them as freelancers,
00:24:40.280
as independent contractors. So can you talk to us about what that is?
00:24:43.800
Absolutely. So the pro act, the protecting right to organize act is a federal piece of legislation
00:24:51.800
already passed by Democrats in the U S house of representatives that is modeled, uh, after
00:24:58.200
legislation that was already enacted in California called AB five. Uh, I want to first note that the
00:25:05.880
pro act goes earlier than AB five in the fact that it also, uh, includes a lot of pro union,
00:25:13.320
provisions. Um, this means that the right to work laws that have passed in a number of different
00:25:22.120
states now would essentially be gutted. Uh, workers would be forced to hand over private information
00:25:29.400
to their union. So that aspect of this legislation is problematic enough. That's for another podcast,
00:25:35.800
another time, but it's interesting when you, uh, hear, uh, the left endorse the pro act,
00:25:42.760
talk about the pro act, including president Joe Biden, who issued a bringing endorsement of this
00:25:48.680
legislation, he makes no mention of the problems that I'm about to bring up that directly would
00:25:56.120
impact, uh, the livelihoods of anyone across this country who works in an independent contractor or
00:26:03.080
freelance gig. Uh, those, those two independent contractors and freelancers, uh, essentially are,
00:26:09.320
are, are, are, are the same thing in the legal ways when we talk about this legislation. Um,
00:26:15.160
so the pro act would force the vast majority of American workers who work as independent contractors
00:26:21.560
or freelancers to work as formal employees, regardless of whether they prefer that type of
00:26:29.240
arrangement or whether they prefer the independent contractor status. Um, so let me tell you how this
00:26:37.080
bill actually works and then we can get into the motivations behind it. So this bill would, uh,
00:26:43.880
nationalize what's called the ABC test. Uh, the ABC test is infamous in California and is used to
00:26:50.840
determine if a worker should be classified as an independent contractor. The standard establishes
00:26:56.760
that a worker is an employee unless she meets three criteria. A is free from the control and direction of
00:27:04.760
the hiring entity. B performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entities business.
00:27:11.800
And C is engaged in trade occupation or business of the same nature. So the B prong is what has proved
00:27:18.920
to be so problematic in California to the point that it is devastated. The gig economy, uh, multiple
00:27:26.840
carve outs have, um, have had to be addressed to give special exemptions to different sectors of
00:27:35.080
California's freelance economy. This bill did not work in California. Uh, lawmakers have backtracked on
00:27:41.880
it, passing cleanup legislation. Uh, and, and yet lawmakers want to take it nationwide. It really makes
00:27:49.320
no sense, but it does make a lot of sense why Democrats in, in promoting it, uh, make no mention
00:27:56.360
of the impact it would have on freelance and independent contractors. So let me give an example
00:28:02.200
of why this B prong is so problematic. And can you restate the B prong just in, in case people might've
00:28:08.760
forgotten. So, uh, performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entities business. Uh, so if,
00:28:18.120
if you perform work that is outside of the usual course of the hiring entities business, you cannot
00:28:23.160
be hired as a freelance worker or an independent contractor. So this is a real life example. This
00:28:28.760
is a woman who I've gotten to know over the past year who has been devastated by AB five in California.
00:28:36.200
She lives outside San Diego. Her name is Monica Wyman. She's a Hispanic mother. Um, and she's also a
00:28:43.880
florist. She did not, um, have any higher education. She really struggled to get a, find any sort of work
00:28:52.360
after, uh, taking time off to raise her young kid. She eventually found work, uh, in a local flower shop
00:29:00.200
and decided to be an entrepreneur and start her own flower business, uh, designing for floral arrangements
00:29:07.960
for weddings and other special events. Uh, this was, she had a lot of success for this and she began
00:29:14.680
hiring fellow moms who couldn't or didn't want to take on a full-time job. Um, but they did want to
00:29:23.080
contribute to their family's income and, uh, you know, fulfill their lives with a side gig, such as
00:29:29.160
helping to design flower arrangements. So she hired them as freelancers, uh, but because of AB five,
00:29:36.440
she's now being forced to shut down her business because of that B prong, uh, these freelance
00:29:43.000
workers do not perform tasks that is outside the usual course of her. So just to clarify,
00:29:50.440
B prong says that in order for you to qualify as an independent contractor, you do have to be, um,
00:29:58.440
providing services that the, the business that hired you is not typically providing. So for
00:30:06.280
example, if I were an independent contractor for, uh, for a blaze TV, I'm hosting a podcast.
00:30:13.240
I probably wouldn't qualify under this as an independent contractor, because this is kind of
00:30:18.920
what, what blaze TV does. They, they do media, they, they do podcasts and things like that. And so I
00:30:25.800
probably wouldn't be able to say maybe if I were like a freelance plumber or something like that coming
00:30:31.880
in, I would qualify as a freelancer, but because I'm doing something that is within the scope of
00:30:37.800
what blaze TV does, I wouldn't qualify under this B prong as a freelancer. This would force the blaze
00:30:45.000
to, you know, hire me as a full-time employee. That's what, that's what you're saying. Correct.
00:30:50.840
Exactly. And this already happened in California, uh, with Vox, which, uh, ironically was touting the
00:30:58.760
legislation before it went into effect. Vox had a bunch of freelance writers, uh, based in California
00:31:05.560
who would contribute from time to time and make a decent amount of income. Uh, but AB five in
00:31:11.560
California, uh, it, not only did this B prong, you know, not work out for these freelance writers,
00:31:20.360
uh, but they also capped the number of articles. These freelance writers were allowed to submit for any
00:31:26.680
one organization. Um, and so Vox had to let go of hundreds of freelance writers in California,
00:31:34.680
which of course was devastating for them to the point that, uh, you know, the, these writers
00:31:40.600
actually lobbied for their own special carve out from AB five in California so that they wouldn't have
00:31:47.400
to operate under AB five and lose those opportunities. There've been a number of industries, uh, similar to,
00:31:56.600
freelance writers who have successfully lobbied for these exemptions in California, uh, to the point
00:32:03.400
that it very sadly, it's the less influential industries that have been left out that didn't
00:32:11.320
have all the money to spend on expensive lobbying campaigns. They didn't have the political connections,
00:32:15.960
right? You know, writers could use their voice to push back against this law selfishly. They only got
00:32:21.480
carve outs for themselves. They didn't get it for everyone in California. And even worse,
00:32:26.040
now they're enabling this law to spread to the entire country through the pro act. So this could
00:32:34.280
be absolutely devastating for the, so many independent contractors, many of whom are working moms who
00:32:41.480
would rather prioritize, you know, their caregiving responsibilities, you know, not always just for
00:32:47.560
children, but for their aging parents, there's so many reasons that Americans prefer not to go after a
00:32:55.560
traditional W two job and, and need that side income, but can only work certain hours or only
00:33:03.320
want to work certain hours. Yeah. You know, this, I view it as an attack on the American dream,
00:33:08.520
quite frankly, um, the ability to work for yourself. Right. And I also think, um, if we get into
00:33:17.560
the, the, the, the why behind it, of course, what's being said, I'm sure what was said in,
00:33:23.240
in California and what is being said right now is that this protects the American worker. This makes
00:33:30.680
sure that you get benefits because they Democrats almost cast freelancing as something that people
00:33:36.520
fall into. They don't want to be there, but that's actually not true. I think that it was you that said in
00:33:41.400
your article that 70%, at least a freelancers are voluntarily freelancers. Like they might be able
00:33:47.960
to, to get a traditional job, an employee job, but they don't want to, they like the flexibility.
00:33:53.400
They like the income. They, they like the freedom of being a freelancer. Um, and now Democrats are
00:34:00.200
saying, well, no, like you deserve, um, access to a union, you deserve, uh, benefits. And so we're going
00:34:07.800
to force your employer to actually, or we're going to force the person who hired you as a freelancer
00:34:12.680
to make you an employee. Well, that's not going to be the result. The result is going to be these
00:34:17.480
companies saying, well, I'm not going to hire you as an employee. I can't afford to. I'm going to have
00:34:21.880
to pay you a different salary. I'm going to have to provide benefits for you. And I just can't afford
00:34:27.640
that. So what this is going to lead to is not freelancers all of a sudden getting hired by these
00:34:32.440
companies and getting benefits and a higher salary and access to a union. It's going to be that
00:34:37.560
they're going to be out of work because these companies aren't going to be able to afford to
00:34:42.600
hire full time. All of these people who are currently functioning as independent contractors.
00:34:48.760
That is like what you said, exactly what happened in California. That's what's going to happen on a
00:34:53.720
national scale. And I'm guessing the why behind it is because Democrats want more people paying union
00:35:01.800
dues. They want more union power because the democratic party is, is backed by the unions. Is that
00:35:07.240
like, is that an okay assessment of the why behind it, the stated why, and then possibly the actual
00:35:13.480
why? Yes, I'm going to get into the why, but what you just said brings me full circle to the Monica
00:35:21.320
Wyman example that I mentioned earlier, where she did not have enough income to provide traditional
00:35:28.520
benefits to the freelance moms she used to rely on to run her business. Now that she can't hire these
00:35:35.080
freelance moms to help her. She cannot fulfill the orders for floral arrangements for weddings by
00:35:44.040
herself. She also, by the way, has a health condition where she's physically unable to do some of the
00:35:49.160
installment of these floral arrangements at weddings, for example. So her business relied on the support of
00:35:56.440
her fellow freelance moms to run. She did not have enough income to provide them the benefits that AB5
00:36:05.400
in California required. And so now she's out of work, she's shutting down her business. And the fellow
00:36:11.640
moms who she used to hire are also out of work. Now, I just want to pause just one second, because I think
00:36:18.000
sometimes our progressive friends, when they think about a company refusing to take on full-time
00:36:27.820
employees and just keeping independent contractors, or when they think about the hesitance of business
00:36:32.140
owners raising the minimum wage, they think about these greedy millionaires, these greedy rich people
00:36:40.560
who just don't want to help out the common man. They don't want to raise the minimum wage because
00:36:45.760
they're greedy. No, what we're talking about are small business owners who just like everyone else
00:36:51.620
are trying to make ends meet. And the people that they're hiring are also trying to make ends meet.
00:36:57.520
So when you pass a bill like this, or when you raise the minimum wage arbitrarily to $15,
00:37:02.920
you're not hurting the rich millionaires. I mean, they can take it, they'll figure it out,
00:37:06.620
they'll automate. Who you're hurting are these small business owners who are just trying to provide
00:37:12.340
for their families, right? Right. And the freelance moms that Monica used to hire never asked for
00:37:18.620
these benefits. They chose to work for her. And it's just devastating. And there's just countless
00:37:26.060
of these types of examples in California. It says a lot that lawmakers on the national level,
00:37:32.200
again, are not talking about the impact that the PRO Act could have on freelance workers and small
00:37:39.340
businesses nationwide, because the consequences of those are looming in their own backyards
00:37:44.260
out in California, where they actually enacted this type of legislation. I agree with you, the
00:37:50.680
motivations behind the PRO Act are to empower the unions. That's who's endorsing them. And, you know,
00:37:58.800
it sounds a bit cynical, but, you know, the unions have lost a lot of power and a lot of money
00:38:04.640
over the past couple years. And you have to think, who stands to benefit from a legislation
00:38:11.040
like this? It is the unions. They are the only ones who stand to benefit. Poll after poll tells us
00:38:17.560
the vast majority of freelance workers choose to work that way by choice. They're not asking for
00:38:24.600
these benefits. They are getting them in other ways, whether that's through their husbands, whether
00:38:29.020
that's through private organizations, whether that's through faith-based organizations. So it is the
00:38:34.820
unions who stand to benefit. And this law, I have a lot of friends who work in freelance that have
00:38:43.060
nothing to do with politics. They don't love talking politics with me. And I have a hard time
00:38:49.640
communicating with them about the dangers this legislation poses to their entire way of life. It would
00:38:57.060
fundamentally transform the way Americans are allowed to work in this country. It would change
00:39:05.380
your life overnight if you are a freelance worker who relied on a contract you had from, you know,
00:39:12.680
a company that all of a sudden would be forced to comply with this law and could no longer keep that
00:39:19.100
contract with you. It could have the effect of forcing you into a traditional nine to five job that a lot
00:39:25.360
of Americans, specifically a lot of women don't want. We are moving towards a more flexible workplace,
00:39:31.860
which is especially empowering for working moms to balance the priorities of being a caregiver and
00:39:38.900
also keeping their foot in the door. The left constantly talks about wanting to keep, you know,
00:39:45.260
increase women's labor participation rates. Well, this legislation would make it more difficult to do
00:39:51.500
that because it would force women and all Americans for that matter into an all or nothing position of
00:39:58.000
you either work a traditional nine to five union job or you don't work at all. Or you rely on a single
00:40:03.560
income if you're married or which would dramatically change a lot of people's life. A lot of people make
00:40:10.000
a good, you know, at least side income being a freelancer. If you no longer have that income and you say,
00:40:17.000
you know what, I can't do a nine to five job. I don't want my kids to, you know, go to daycare. I
00:40:21.500
want to be at home. Then you rely on your husband's salary, which might be fine, but you might have to
00:40:27.960
dramatically change where you live, you know, what you're able to actually afford. Like you said,
00:40:35.360
your entire way of life. What do you think the likelihood is of this passing? Of course, we would
00:40:44.760
think that Republicans would be against it, that it wouldn't pass the Senate. But, you know, I never
00:40:51.260
know. Sometimes Republicans just disappointing, disappoint, disappoint me. They surprise me.
00:40:58.880
And so I guess I'm worried about this. I'm worried as well. So it was passed in the House already.
00:41:06.560
The vast majority of Democrats supported it, but a small handful of Republicans also voted in favor of
00:41:12.960
it. And so that should be concerning for heading to the Senate where, you know, it's tied. And then
00:41:20.060
Mala Harris would be the tiebreaker vote. We know that the Biden administration endorsed this
00:41:26.200
legislation. Look, Joe Biden is supposed to hold this first press conference this week. I know it's
00:41:32.460
a pipe dream, but I really hope at some point he or his administration is asked about the potential
00:41:40.080
consequences of the proact on freelance and independent workers, because it would fundamentally
00:41:46.280
transform the way Americans are allowed to work. And we're not just talking in hypotheticals here.
00:41:52.220
Yeah. We have real examples from the state of California, which is liberal utopia that tell us
00:41:58.880
this law did not work for independent contractors there. Why does anybody think in that case that it
00:42:06.500
would work nationwide? Yeah. You also have to wonder, and I know this is like especially cynical, but we
00:42:12.780
talked about getting people out of the home, getting parents out of the home who would like to have that
00:42:18.000
freelancing job or, you know, like they like that flexibility. You have to wonder if it also has to do with
00:42:26.020
that. Is it a desire from like a cultural standpoint to have more parents working full time and to be able to
00:42:35.180
lobby for other things like universally subsidized daycare and things like that? I mean, I know that
00:42:41.620
might be seeming to go a little bit far, but when you think about the implications of that, taking more
00:42:47.940
moms out of the home, which is exactly what's going to happen, you have to wonder if that's part of the
00:42:52.620
motivation or maybe if that's just an unintended consequence. I don't know.
00:42:55.640
It's safe to say it's an unintended consequence. I don't doubt, you know, it's part of the larger push
00:43:05.360
by the left because yes, if you force women out of, you know, work from home options where they have
00:43:12.020
contracts that they're doing the work, you know, while taking care of their children at home,
00:43:17.080
you know, they're forced to find those childcare options. And hey, free daycare sounds pretty nice,
00:43:23.120
right? Of course, it's not free. We're actually paying for it. And in effect, don't have much
00:43:27.560
control over the quality of that daycare. But that's exactly what would happen. And I really
00:43:33.180
fear that freelance workers are going to wake up to the consequences of this law too late, like they
00:43:39.580
did in California. You know, everybody passed this and liberals in California were very excited.
00:43:46.000
You know, this is going to empower workers, get them more benefits. And within the first month,
00:43:51.860
freelance workers realized that's not what has happened here. Instead, we've lost jobs all
00:43:58.440
together. Yeah. And so I don't doubt Ali, if this legislation ever does pass and get signed into law
00:44:06.460
that it would receive so much pushback that eventually changes would have to be made. But I do
00:44:12.220
not want that to see that happen to all these freelance workers whose incomes would be wiped away
00:44:18.120
overnight. So if you know any freelance workers, independent contractors who stand to be impacted
00:44:23.920
by this legislation, you know, we really need to have a conversation with them about its potential
00:44:30.160
impacts. Because again, choosing the way you want to work when you want to work who you want to work
00:44:35.500
for should be a fundamental right that we all have. And this legislation would take that away.
00:44:41.020
Absolutely. Well, thank you so much for laying that out so clearly in both of these issues.
00:44:47.420
Everyone can follow you on Instagram and Twitter, correct? And anywhere else that they can follow
00:44:53.700
or support you? Absolutely. At Kelsey Bowler on both those platforms. And they can also follow me
00:45:01.100
by signing up for Bright Email on getbrightemail.com. It's a morning newsletter for women by women.
00:45:07.460
I have a feeling that your fan base would have a lot of fun with it.
00:45:11.540
Yeah, for sure. Well, thank you so much, Kelsey. I really appreciate you taking the time to talk to
00:45:15.420
us. Thank you. All right. So that proact, guys, I just want to emphasize to you how important it is
00:45:33.540
for you to call your senator. Even if you're not a freelancer, this is going to have devastating
00:45:39.080
effects on our economy after a time that our economy has already been devastated by these
00:45:44.200
arbitrary lockdowns. People have already suffered so much, especially freelancers have suffered so
00:45:49.320
much because a lot of people aren't paying for the freelance services that they were previously
00:45:53.980
because they're trying to save their own money. Freelancers have had a tough go of it
00:45:57.920
in some cases over the past year. And so if you care about anyone who is a freelancer,
00:46:04.720
if you care about the American dream, if you care about entrepreneurship, if you care about the
00:46:08.880
reason why 1 million immigrants come here every year to be able to have the freedom and flexibility
00:46:14.100
to start their own business and to be able to build a life here for their families that they
00:46:20.960
couldn't have built from the country where they came, then you should care about this bill.
00:46:27.640
This dramatically transforms our economy and not in a good way. And if liberals in California were
00:46:33.700
complaining about it, were complaining that this hurt their lives, then you know it's not good.
00:46:38.820
But again, Democrats want to put it on a national scale. They want it to be national so they can get
00:46:45.260
that power from the unions. And I also think it has to do with wanting to change culture and wanting
00:46:50.760
to change families as well. And so this is a bill that you absolutely have to push back on.
00:46:56.620
It's not one that people are going to be talking about because it doesn't talk about, I don't know
00:47:02.120
what other adjective to use, but it doesn't talk about like these sexy topics that we talk about a
00:47:07.620
lot that, you know, get a lot of attention or are, you know, necessarily clickable or will go viral.
00:47:14.220
It's not a cultural issue. It doesn't seem like, but it is so important. I mean, this affects
00:47:19.900
people's lives. This will affect all of our lives, but especially freelancers. I guarantee you every
00:47:26.740
one of you knows a freelancer that you care about whose life would be directly and negatively impacted
00:47:33.160
by something like this. I encourage you to read the legislation for yourself if you have any
00:47:37.880
questions about it, but call your senator. Make sure that your senator is voting against this bill.
00:47:44.400
Again, whether it's Republican or Democrat, this is a very bipartisan issue. It really,
00:47:49.700
again, doesn't have one of those like wedge social issues in there. Yes, Democrats are going to support
00:47:56.240
it because of the unions. But if you live in West Virginia, maybe, for example, or if you live or if
00:48:03.040
Kristen Sinema is your is your senator in Arizona, you might be able to push them over the edge on this.
00:48:11.000
So just make sure that you are reaching out to your senators or emailing your calling and you're
00:48:15.400
stating your opposition to this bill in a very kind, respectful and thoughtful way. And just make
00:48:22.760
sure that they feel the pressure, because remember, these representatives work for you. These senators
00:48:27.380
work for you. So push back on the proact. It is so important. All right. That's all I've got for